Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 231 posts

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#181

Post by yesenadam »

Zurrrrr wrote: post #179
yesenadam wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I give up. That's about the 20th mocking, insulting comment of yours I've read on this page, while you pretend to occupy the high ground. Sickening stuff. HN deserves way better. Please refresh on the guidelines. There aren't many in the first 10 paragraphs of the "In comments" guidelines you haven't broken on this page, multiple times. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Thanks for your input.

No problem, I'm sure it's not just me who felt that. Also, please consider that even if you were totally right about everything and everyone you interacted with totally wrong, that would be no justification at all for the way you've carried on on this page.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#182

Post by Zurrrrr »

yesenadam wrote: post #181
Zurrrrr wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your input.

No problem, I'm sure it's not just me who felt that. Also, please consider that even if you were totally right about everything and everyone you interacted with totally wrong, that would be no justification at all for the way you've carried on on this page.

Thanks for letting me know.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#183

Post by jgalt212 »

viewtransform wrote: post #30

More than a decade ago I submitted my DNA to the National Genographic Project [1] which was an attempt to trace ancient human migration using Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA from a sampling of people around the world. My paternal Y-chromosome line showed an ancient mutation (>50K year ago) carried by humans who had likely spread through a coastal migration from Africa around coasts of the Arabian Sea down to South…

> As we gather more data our understanding of human migration inevitably clashes with identity politics/nationalism

It's funny you should mention this, as I saw the documentary and I seem to remember some North American indigenous tribes refusing to participate. Their reasoning was the Nat Geo was just trying to prove they were immigrants like everyone else.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#184

Post by Simon_O_Rourke »

Jedd wrote: post #33

It's an emotionally charged subject, which is unfortunate as it's objectively fascinating from a purely historical perspective. The simplified and (generally) commonly accepted narrative is that a cohesive group arrived here 45-60,000YA, lived peacefully and in harmony with the land right up until Europeans arrived. There's some debate about the megafauna extinctions, but no conclusive evidence either way. (I did app…

> It's an emotionally charged subject

Agreed, and for no good reason too. All these notions of "purity of the blood" and that nonsense are shown up to be completely false when studied. We all collectively share lots of genetic code from many diverse ancestors, so I don't see why folks get all worked up about it.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#185

Post by lovemenot »

Jedd wrote: post #33

It's an emotionally charged subject, which is unfortunate as it's objectively fascinating from a purely historical perspective. The simplified and (generally) commonly accepted narrative is that a cohesive group arrived here 45-60,000YA, lived peacefully and in harmony with the land right up until Europeans arrived. There's some debate about the megafauna extinctions, but no conclusive evidence either way. (I did app…

What's the commonly accepted view on the origin of dingos? I imagined they were introduced along with those humans 50,000 ya.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#186

Post by zen_1 »

Zurrrrr wrote: post #180
zen_1 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should try talking to people with interesting ancestors (or views of their ancestors). I won't go into too much detail here to avoid doxing myself, but I've had a few decent discussions about some of my and my friends' ancestors/likely ancestors as historical figures. Depending on who you're (un)fortunate enough to be descended from, you might find yourself viewing certain historical events in a different light.

Why would finding out you were related to a figure from history at all change how you would view that history?

Personally as a child it helped me humanize these historical figures and view them as I would an uncle or grandfather, as opposed to the sometimes one-dimensional treatment notable figures would get from the educational system or culture you learn about them from.

Now as an adult it's perhaps less interesting, but I still know significantly more random trivia about historical figures I'm distantly related to compared to others.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#187

Post by dawdaway »

riatin wrote: post #172
girvo wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Aboriginals, not unlike Native Americans, reject any attempt to explain their origin via science as they stick to the story of their origin that comes from their religion, and see the science based origin as disrespectful. No, they do not all do this, and I'd caution you on speaking for a people that aren't a monolith within their mobs in the first place.

Would assume you're of or closely affiliated with Aboriginal heritage given the phrasing. My assessment of this is that if this were to become part of the established history of indigenous Australians, quite a bit of the narrative around 'ownership' changes dramatically.

I doubt it, either way they were here before Europeans who declared them non-human and assumed ownership of the landmass based on that declaration.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#188

Post by Zurrrrr »

zen_1 wrote: post #186
Zurrrrr wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would finding out you were related to a figure from history at all change how you would view that history?

Personally as a child it helped me humanize these historical figures and view them as I would an uncle or grandfather, as opposed to the sometimes one-dimensional treatment notable figures would get from the educational system or culture you learn about them from. Now as an adult it's perhaps less interesting, but I still know significantly more random trivia about historical figures I'm distantly related to compared…

That makes sense. Thanks.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#189

Post by dawdaway »

Zurrrrr wrote: post #134
girvo wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, so you're allowed to spout whatever idiocy you want, but others aren't allowed to call you on it. Sounds about right. You grew up in Aus apparently, but seem to have very little understand of ATSI culture and how diverse it is. Come work with my partner at IUIH and then generalise the way you have been. Generalise disparate groups of people elsewhere. And shove off with your thought terminating cliches: it's n…

[flagged]

Your point was hardly "real" either bucko, you ascribe a large group of people with a specific belief (without any citations) and then try to skip out of any culpability by saying its a generalisation.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#190

Post by defrost »

dawdaway wrote: post #187
riatin wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would assume you're of or closely affiliated with Aboriginal heritage given the phrasing. My assessment of this is that if this were to become part of the established history of indigenous Australians, quite a bit of the narrative around 'ownership' changes dramatically.

I doubt it, either way they were here before Europeans who declared them non-human and assumed ownership of the landmass based on that declaration.

For the international audience, that UK assumption of "Terra Nullus" was knocked back and overturned by the Mabo decision of 1992:

    In Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2), judgments of the High Court inserted the legal doctrine of native title into Australian law.

    The High Court recognised the fact that Indigenous peoples had lived in Australia for thousands of years and enjoyed rights to their land according to their own laws and customs.
https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/mabo-case
Post reply on HN